Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-30T16:31:58.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Kiwi Paradox — Comparison of Freedom of Information in Australia and New Zealand

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Rick Snell
Rick Snell*
Affiliation:
University of Tasmania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Australian freedom of information (FOI) specialists, on first encounter with New Zealand's Official Information Act 1982, tend to scratch their heads about this quaint and quixotic variant of access legislation. Viewed from a trans-Tasman perspective, the Official Information Act appears riddled with extremely flexible provisions which would offer hard-bitten bureaucrats easy escape routes to avoid providing requested information. An initial glance at the history of the Official Information Act merely confirms this observation. When it was launched, the Official Information Act was seen by many New Zealanders as a poor compromise between an Official Secrets Act and freedom of information legislation. Indeed, Sir Robert Muldoon referred to it as a “nine day wonder”. The final passage of the Australian FOT Act was accompanied by an initial belief in the creation of a nascent regime of openness, whereas the introduction of the Official Information Act was depicted by the Public Service Association as “Not a freedom of information law...nor a secrecy law...but an uneasy compromise between the two”.

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , September 2000 , pp. 575 - 616
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This article arose from an invitation to be the Inaugural Visiting Fellow of the New Zealand Institute of Public Law at the Victoria University, Wellington. My gratitude to Paul Walker, the former Director, and to Melissa Poole, Deputy Director. My apologies to the VUW Public Law classes who had to sit through my initial ham-fisted attempts at comparing the Freedom of Information and Official Information Acts. My thanks are also extended, in no particular order, to the following New Zealanders who displayed great tolerance in trying to enlighten an Australian academic: Sir Geoffrey Palmer, former Prime Minister of New Zealand, Richard Buchanan, Director of the Law Commission and Ailsa Salt, former Executive Director of the Information Authority. Finally a word of thanks to the New Zealand Ombudsmen, Sir Brian Elwood and Justice Anand Satyanand, and their staff whose request for a seminar forced me to try and undertake a critical comparison of the two schemes of access.

References

1 Belgrave, J, “The Official Information Act and the Policy Process” in Legal Research Foundation, The Offical Information Act Semh1ar Papers: General Overview of Offlcial Information and the Official Information Act (1997) at 24Google Scholar.

2 New Zealand Public Service Association, Open Government? A users guide to the Official Information Act (PSA Research Discussion Paper, 18 April 1983) at 2. Copy held by author.

3 Ibid at 5.

4 Buchanan, R, “Cabinet, policy documents and freedom of information: the New Zealand experience” (1991) 31 Fol Rev 1 at 2-6Google Scholar.

5 The original version of the design principles used in this paper were drawn from Buchanan's article and further refined during my research in New Zealand.

6 R Hazell, “Freedom of Information in Australia, Canada and New Zealand” (1989) 67 Public Administration 189.

7 G Palmer, New Zealand's Constitution in Crisis: Reforming our Political System (1992) at 31- 33.

8 M Paterson, Submission 94 quoted in Australian Law Reform Commission and Administrative Review Council. Open Government: a review of the federal Freedom of Information Act 1982 (ALRC 77/ ARC 40, 1995) at 35.

9 G Liddell, “The Official Information Act 1982 and the Legislature: A Proposal” in Legal Research Foundation, above n 1.

10 Eagles, I, Taggart, M and Liddell, G, Freedom of Information in New Zealand (1992)Google Scholar.

11 Gillis, R P, “Freedom of Information and Open Government in Canada” in A McDonald and G Terrill (eels), Open Government: Freedom of Infonnation and Privacy (1999) at 151CrossRefGoogle Scholar quoting Canadian Information Commissioner John Grace.

12 R Hazell, above n 6 at 201.

13 Sir Guy Powles, “Freedom of Information and the State”, a discussion paper for the 1980 Conference on Freedom of Information and die State (Victoria University, Wellington, Dec 6- 7) at 2.

14 G Terrill, Secrecy and Openness: Tbe Federal Government from Menzies to Wbitlam and Beyond (2000) at 98-99. A brief summary of this material can be found in G Terrill, “The Rise and Decline of Freedom of Information in Australia” in A McDonald and G Terrill (eds), above n 11 at 90-95.

15 Spigelman, J, Secrecy Political Censorsbip in Australia (1972)Google Scholar.

16 The initial bureaucratic gamesmanship over the reform initiative for open government promised by the Whitlam government is superbly told in G Terrill, above n 14 at 98-99.

17 Whitlam, S, The Whitlam Government 1972-75 (1985) at 621Google Scholar.

18 These outlines include: ALRC/ ARC, above n 8 at paras 3.1-3.7; Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, Freedom of' 1nformation--Report on the Freedom of Information Bill 1978 and aspects of the Arcl1ives Bill (1979); Freedom of Information Act 1982-Annual Report by the Attorney-General on the operations of' the Act, for the period 1/12/82 to 3016/83 (1983). See also K Harrison and A Cossins, Documents, Dossiers and the lnside Dope-a practical guide to freedom of 1nformation law (1993).

19 G Terrill, above n 14 at 93.

20 Curtis, L. “Freedom of Information in Australia” in N Marsh (ed) Public Access to Government Held-Information (1987) at 173-175Google Scholar. Lindsay Curtis was the original chair of that inter-departmental committee.

21 G Terrill, Secrecy and Openness. Publicity and Propaganda: The Politics of Australian Federal Government Communication, c1960-1976 (dissertation submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Queensland University ofTeclmology. 1996) at 206-207.

22 The material included one of the Cabinet copies of Lionel Murphy's Cabinet submission plus other supporting papers and Cabinet documents dealing with the issue of FOI during 1973-1974.

23 ALRC/ ARC, above n 8 at para 3.2.

24 L Curtis, above n 20 at 172-173.

25 G Terrill, above n 21 at 167.

26 G Terrill. above n 14 at 88-93.

27 G Terrill, above n 21 at 167.

28 Whitlarn 1972 policy speech “It's Time,” delivered 13/11/72. Sydney.

29 G Terrill, above n 14 at 99 fn 58.

30 Submission No 19 for Cabinet, from Lionel Murphy. Commonwealth Attorney General dated 5 January 1973, 11 pages. Copy held by author.

31 Ibid at para 5. The following Departments were to be on the Committee: Prime Minister and Cabinet. Public Service Board, Defence, Treasury, Special Minister for State and Attorney-General's (ibid at para 11).

32 Ibid at para 12. The justifications for this position included the protection of frank and impartial advice, the need to canvas all issues and to protect the occasional inclusion of immature or tentative material.

33 Ibid at para 13.

34 Ibid at para 14.

35 Ibid at para 20. The Franks Committee had in 1972 reviewed the operation of the Official Secrets Act 1911 (UK), s 2.

36 G Terrill. above n14 at 99.

37 Cabinet Minute, Decision No 30-Freedom of Information, 10 January 1973. Copy held by author.

38 G Terrill, above n 14 at 99.

39 Cabinet Minute, above o 37 at 2, point (c).

40 G Terrill, above n 21 at 180, footnotes 216 and 217.

41 G Terrill, above n 14 at 100 footnote 59.

42 L Curtis, above n 20 at 173.

43 The early history of the OTA is well covered in I Eagles, M Taggart and G Liddell, above n 10 at 1-3. See also B Harland, “The Danks Report” in Legal Research Foundation, above n 1 at 1-5.

44 l Eagles, M Taggart and G Liddell, above n 10 at 1.

45 J Aitkens, “Open Government in New Zealand” in A McDonald and G Terrill (eds), above n 11 at 117-142.

46 Ibid at 121.

47 I Eagles, M Taggart and G Liddell, above n 10 at 1, footnote 4.

48 B Harland, above n 43 at 2.

49 Ibid at 3.

50 J Aitkens, above n 45 at 125.

51 Ibid.

52 [1985] 1 NZLR 578 at 586.

53 G Liddell, above n 9 at 6.

54 B Harland above n 43 at 3.

55 I Eagles, M Taggart and G Liddell, above n 10 at 21-22.

56 Committee on Official Information (Danks Committee), Towards Open Government (1980), vol I, General Report. Appendix I at 40. In 1978 the terms of reference for the committee were:

1. The basic task of the Committee is to contribute to the larger aim of freedom of information by considering the extent to which official information can be made readily available to the public. With this end in view and having in mind the need to safeguard national security, the public interest and individual privacy, the Committee should, in particular:

(a) review the critelia for applying the classifications now in use and, if necessary, recommend the redefinition of the categories of information which should be protected; and

(b) examine the purpose and application of the Official Secrets Act 1951, in particular section 6, and any other relevant legislation, and recommend amending legislation.

2. In the light of the foregoing review the Committee should advance appropriate recommendations on changes in policies and procedures which would contribute to the aim of freedom of information.

57 Ibid, Vol 2, Supplementary Report at 6.

58 I Eagles. M Taggart and G Liclclell, above n 10 at 21. See the discussion at 22-28 of the different judicial approach to the interpretation of information in relation to the criminal discovery process.

59 R Snell, “Comment” (1993) 44 Fol Rev 13 where a summary is given of the Nash Report which detailed a series of information malpractices in relation to FOi procedure in Victoria in the 1980s. A copy of the Nash Report is held by the author.

60 United Kingdom White Paper, Your Rightto Know (11 December 1997) at para 2.10.

61 ALRC/ ARC. Freedom of Information (DP 59. May 1995) para 4.2 ATO Submission 41.

62 United States District Court in Disabled Ofiicer's Association v Rumsfield 428 F Supp 454 at 456 (I 977).

63 Freedom of Information Act 1991 (Tas), s 7.

64 New Zealand Ombudsman. “Application of Official Information legislation to non-documentary information” (1998) 4(3) Ombudsman Quarterly Review at l (emphasis added).

65 G Liddell, above n 9 at 6.

66 R Snell, “The Torchlight starts to glow a little brighter: Interpretation of Freedom of Information Legislation Revisited” (1995) AJAL 197: R Snell, “Hitting the Wall: Does Freedom of Information Have Staying Power?” National Administrative Law Forum (7-8 July 1994, Brisbane) published in S Argument (ed), Administrative Law: Are the States Overtaking the Commonwealth? (1996) AIAL at 153; A Cossins, “Revisiting Open Government: Recent Developments in Shifting the Boundaries of Government Secrecy Under Public Interest Immunity and Freedom oflnformation Law” (I 995) 23 FL Rev 226 at 263; S Zifcak, “Freedom of information: torchlight but not searchlight” paper presented at National Conference on Administrative Law (1991) 66 Canbem1 Bulletin of Public Administration 162.

67 News Corp Ltd v National Companies and Securities Commission (1984) 52 ALR 277; Arnold v Queensland 13 ALD 195; Searle v PIAC {1992) 108 ALR 163.

68 Sobh v Police Force of Victolia (1994) 1 VR 41 and Kirby P in Commjssjoner of Police v Dist1ict Court ofNSW and PeIJ"in (1993) 31 NSWLR 606.

69 Queensland Information Commissioner in Re Eccleston and DepartJnent of Famj/y Services and Abo1iginal and Islander Affairs (1994) 1 QAR GO; Re Read illld Public Service Commission Decision Office of the Information Commissioner (WA) Ref D00194, 16 February 1994, unreported; NSW Ombudsman Guidelines (December, 1994) at 3; Snell v 1i1smanian Development and Resources Tasmanian Ombudsman, Decision 95030080, 10 April 1995.

70 AL.RC/ ARC, above n 8 at para 4.2.

71 Ibid at paras 4.4-4.6.

72 Re: Searle AustraHa Pty Ltd and Public Interest Advocacy Centre and Department of Communi"y Servkes and Health (1992) 36 FCR 111 was followed in lpex Info Tech v Dept of Info Teel, Services SA (District Court South Australia, Lunn J, 16 June 1997, unreported) at 7-10. A view endorsed by Sheppard v SA Minister for Health (District Court South Australia, TrenordenJ, 8 December 1997, unreported) at 4-5.

73 (1984) 52 AL.R 277 at 279.

74 No V94/547 AAT No 10625.

75 R Snell, “The Torchlight starts to glow a little brighter: Interpretation of Freedom of Information Legislation Revisited” (1995) AJAL 197.

76 {1992) 36 FCR 111 at 115.

77 (1986) 160 CLR 145.

78 Ibid at 153.

79 B Harland, above n 43 at 3.

80 Danks Committee, above n 56, vol 1 at 6.

81 Ibid at 22.

82 M Shroff, “Behind the Official Information Act: Politics. Power and Procedure” in Legal Research Foundation, above n 1 at 19.

83 See ibid for a detailed analysis of how this system of information management now operates in New Zealand.

84 ALRC/ ARC, above n 8 at para 2.8.

85 M Shroff. above n 82 at 19.

86 Ibid at 20.

87 Ibid.

88 I Eagles, M Taggart and G Liddell, above n 10 at 109.

89 T Moe and .f Lye, “Prospects for review of FOI: can the Commonwealth regain the initiative?” in S Argument (ed), above n 66 at 147.

90 R Buchanan, above n 4 at 2.

91 Information Commissioner of Canada, Annual Report Information Commissioner 1993-1994 at 7.

92 Danks Committee, above n 56, vol lat para 65.

93 ALRC/ ARC. above n 8 at para 8.2.

94 ALRC/ ARC (DP 59), Dept of Social Security Submission 39, para 5.2.

95 I Eagles, M Taggart and G Liddell, above n 10 at 109.

96 R Buchanan, above n 4 at 2.

97 I Eagles, M Taggart and G Liddell, above n 10 at 110.

98 In addition to the discussion of the Commonwealth Cabinet exemption (s 34) in ALRC/ ARC, above n 8 paras 9.7-9.13 see R Snell and H Townley, “The Cabinet Information Exemption: Theoretical Safeguards Exposed by a Tasmanian Case Study” (1993) 46 Fol Rev 42: A Cossins, “Uranium mining, Cabinet notebooks and redundant amendments to the Commonwealth Fol Act” {1994) 52 Fol Rev 42; A Cossins “Paving the way for less open government in Victoria: Amendments to the Cabinet documents exemption” (1993) 45 Fol Rev 27.

99 Danks Committee. above n 56 vol l at para 51.

100 Sheridan, H Snell, R. “Freedom of Information and the Tasmanian Ombudsman: 1993-1996” (1997) 16 U Tas LR 107Google Scholar present a detailed analysis of how this “buffer zone” impacts upon the administration and efficacy of FOi in one Australian jurisdiction.

101 ALRC/ ARC, above n 8 para 9.7.

102 H Sheridan and R Snell, above n 100 at 156-158.

103 Rubenstein, K, “The Extended Reach of Cabinet Documents: Lessons From Victoria and Queensland” (1996) 3 AJAL 134Google Scholar.

104 Western Australia Commission on Government, Report No 1 (August 1995) at 141.

105 Advice from the Tasmanian Solicitor-General justifying widening s 24 (Cabinet Exemption) of the Freedom oflnformation Act 1991 {Tas) to the Legislative Council Select Committee on Freedom oflnformation 1997 at 47.

106 The text in the next two paragraphs has been used unaltered in H Sheridan and R Snell, above n 100 at 141.

107 The Queensland Information Commissioner, 4th Annual Report (1995-1996) at 31.

108 Ibid at 32.

109 Western Australia Commission on Government.

110 above n 104 at 114. Ibid.

111 Ibid.

112 Re Fewster and Dept of the Prhne Minister and Cabinet (No.2} (1987) 13 ALD 139; Re Porter and the Dept of Community Services and Health (1988) 14 ALD 403; Re Reith and Minister of State for Aboriginal Affairs (1988) 16 ALD 709; Re Aldred and Dept of Foreign Affairs and Trade (1990) 20 ALD 264; cf Re Anderson and Dept of Special Minister of State (No 2) (1986) 11 ALN N239.

113 ALRC/ ARC, above n 8 at para 9.9.

114 H Sheridan and R Snell, above n 100 at 151-155.

115 Rogers, M, “Appeal over Cabinet secrecy as Fol shield” The Mercury 13 February 1998 at 9Google Scholar.

116 Letter to author dated 3 February 1998 from Mr S Haines, Secretary Tasmanian Department of Premier and Cabinet at 2.

117 This practice has officially ceased with the coming to power of the Bacon Labor Government which gave an undertaking to voluntarily return to conventional practice.

118 Paterson, M, “Victoria's new Fol Bill: some long overdue reforms but still room for improvement” (1999) 84 Fol Rev 90Google Scholar.

119 Pearce, D C (ed), Australian Administrative Law (1995) at 2220Google Scholar.

120 R Buchanan, above n 4 at 5.

121 Application from C Wickliffe to Prime Minister's Dept (NZ) dated 16 May 1994. Copies of correspondence and papers released held by the author.

122 R Buchanan, above n 4 at 5.

123 Not all things are different between Australia and New Zealand. The Chief Executive of the PM's Dept responded on 30 May 1994 with a brief reply “After considering your request, and the public interest considerations required by the Act s 9(1), I have decided to withhold the information sought under the first two categories of your request. This information is withheld pursuant to s 9(f)(iv) ands 9G) of the Act.”

124 Letter from Sir John Robertson, Chief Ombudsman to C Wickliffe, dated 5 September 1994 at 4.

125 R Buchanan, above n 4 at 5.

126 R Snell, “Hitting the Wall: Does Freedom of Information have staying power?” in S Argument (ed), above n 66.

127 A Ar-clagh, “Freedom of Information in Australia: a Comparative and Critical Assessment” paper delivered at ALTA Conference, Western Australia 1991 reprinted in R Douglas and M Jones, Administrative Law: Cases and Materials (1993) 137 at 145.

128 S Zifcak, above n 66 at 162.

129 First Annual Report of the Office of the Information Commissioner WA 1993-1994 at 26.

130 M Campbell and H Arduca, “Public Interest. FOI and the Democratic Principle— Litmus Test” paper presented at INFO 2, 2nd Australian National Conference on Freedom oflnformation, Gold Coast, March 1996.

131 This discussion about the Campbell tests has been largely repeated from an analysis published in H Sheridan and R Snell, above n 100 at 145-147. The analysis and text were developed in an earlier draft of this paper but first published in that earlier article.

132 G Dickinson, “The Public Interest Served by the FOI Act” (1990) 59 Cincinnati LR 191 at 192 quoted by M Campbell and H Arduca, above n 130.

133 G Terrill, above n 21 at 212.

134 G Palmer, above n 7 at 95.

135 R Hazell, above n 6 at 201.

136 G Terrill. above n 21 at 212.

137 This has also been the case where the reasoning in Re Eccleston and Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and b,Jander Affairs (1993) 1 QAR 60 has been adopted, in part, in other jurisdictions, including Tasmania and New South Wales. See H Sheridan and R Snell, above n 100 at 145-147.

138 Copies of the aide-memoire and a letter dated 26 May 1992 from the Secretary of Treasury to the Minister of Finance outlining these facts is held by the author. Released under the OIA to C Wickliffe.

139 Preventing harm to the nation, to the national economy, to the maintenance of the law or to the safety of any person.

140 For a more detailed discussion of how this works in relation to information concerning the policy process, see Legal Research Foundation, above n 1 at 24-29.

141 l Eagles. M Taggart and G Liclclell.

142 above n 10 at 209. Ibid.

143 Danks Committee. above n 56, vol 1 at para 68.

144 Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, above n 18 at para 9.36

145 ALRC/ ARC, Issues Paper 12. Freedom of Information (1994) at para 5.12.

146 Information Commissioner (Canada), Annual Report at 21-22.

147 R Buchanan, above n 4 at 3.

148 G Liddell, “The Interests of Effective Government: New Zealand's Official Information Act in an MMP Era,” paper presented at INFO 2, Second National Conference on Freedom of Information. Gold Coast, Australia, March 1996 at 23.

149 H Hammit, “The Better Part of Discretion– US Style” (1998) 77 Fol Rev 67 at 68.

150 Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. above n 18 at para 27.2.

151 Rowat, D C, “Freedom of Information: The Appeal Bodies Under the Access Laws in Canada, Australia and New Zealand” (1993) 52 AJPA at 218-219Google Scholar.

152 ALRC/ ARC, Issues Paper 12, Freedom oflnformation (1994) at para 8.4.

153 These arguments are raised in ibid.

154 These arguments are raised mainly in ALRC/ ARC DP 59 at para 9.3.

155 See discussion about this package in the conclusion to this paper.

156 Administrative Review Council, Better Decisions: review of Commonwealth merits review tribunals, (Report No 39, 1995) at 11.

157 ALRC/ ARC, above n 8 at para 13.2.

158 Ibid at para 13.4. (submission 34).

159 DC Rawat, above n 151 at 215-221.

160 H Sheridan and R Snell, above n 100.

161 G Terrill, above n 21 at 204-205 for comments on the 1976 McMillan draft.

162 ALRC/ ARC, Issues Paper 12, Freedom of Information (1994) makes this point at para 8.1. See also Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, above n 18 at para 27.2.

163 H Sheridan and R Snell, submission 58 to ALRC/ ARC cited at para 13.8.

164 ALRC/ ARC, above n 8 ch 6.

165 Danks Committee. above n 56, vol l at para 98.

166 B Harland, above n 43 at 4.

167 Ibid.

168 Ibid.

169 Sir George Laking, “The Ombudsman in transition” (1987) 17 Victoria Univm,ity of Wemngton LR 309.

170 Shelton, D J, “The Ombudsman and information” (1987) 12 Victoria University of Wellington LR309Google Scholar.

171 Aikman, C C, “The New Zealand Ombudsman” (1964) 42 Can Bar Rev 399 at 407Google Scholar.

172 Danks Committee, above n 56, vol l at para 99.

173 R Buchanan, above n 4 at 5.

174 I Eagles, M Taggart and G Liddell, above n 10 at 547.

175 Ibid at 547-548.

176 J Belgrave, above n 1 at 24.

177 James, D, “A Federal Freedom of Information Commissioner: Looking behind the ALRC/ ARC Final Report” (1998) 76 Fol Rev 50Google Scholar.

178 Based on information in M Campbell, “Freedom of Information Legislation in Australia: A Comparison” in J McMillan, Administrative Law: Does the Public Benefit? (proceedings of the Australian Institute of Administrative Law Forum, 1992).

179 JusticeKirby, M, “Information and freedom” The Housden Lecture, Melbourne, 6 September 1983 at 11Google Scholar.

180 Danks Committee, above n 56 vol 1 at para 107.

181 Ibid, vol 2, Supplementary Report at para 3.03.

182 Ibid.

183 Noted by R Hazell in Report to the Cabinet Oflice (MPO) on die Operation of' the Oflicial Inf'ormatjo11 Act in New Zealand, Wellington, March 1987 (unpublished copy held by the author) at para 7.1.

184 J Belgrave. above n 1 at 24.

185 R Hazell, above n 183 at para 7.1.

186 Ibid.

187 Information Authority, Discussion and Background Papers D 16, Bl2, BS respectively. Copies held by the author.

188 This range of activity is extensively covered in R Hazell, above n 183 at paras 7.2-7.11.

189 Danks Committee, above n 56, vol 2 at para 3.09.

190 Law Commission (NZ), Review of the Official Information Act 1982 (Report No 40, 1997) at paras 37-50.

191 The factual information in this paragraph was extracted from an e-mail message from Richard Buchanan, Director of the Law Commission (NZ) to the author dated 23 March 1998.

192 Law Commission (NZ), above n 190.

193 Ibid at 49-50.

194 For an analysis of the Law Commission's Report, see H Sheridan and R Snell, “A few more pieces in the puzzle of Freedom of Information in New Zealand” {1997) 72 Fol Rev 78.

195 M Allars, “Interim results of a study of the impact of the NSW FOI Act” (1995) 56 Fol Rev 18.

196 A Cossins, Annotated Freedom of Information Act New SoutlI Wales (1997) at paras 1.7.1-1.7.7.

197 H Sheridan and R Snell, above n 100 at 122-123.

198 Information Authority, Official Information Bul/etin 5 (undated) at 3.

199 Communication between two senior Australian public servants cited in G Terrill, above n 21 at 210, fn 320.

200 Bayne, P, “Freedom of Information: Democracy and the Protection of the Processes of Government” (1988) 62 Alf 538Google Scholar.

201 G Terrill, above n 21 at 211.

202 ALRC/ ARC, above n 8 at para 1.3.

203 M Rayner, Rooting Democracy: Crowing the Society We Want (1997) at 240.

204 Campbell, E, “Public Access to Government Documents” (1967) 41 ALJ73Google Scholar.

205 Mentioned in ALRC/ ARC, above n 8 at para 3.2 and covered in more detail in G Terrill, above n 14 at 91-92.

206 L Curtis, above n 20 at 173.

207 R Buchanan, above n 4 at 2.

208 Curtis, L J, “Freedom oflnformation in Australia” (1983) 14 FL Rev 5Google Scholar.

209 M Shroff, above n 82.

210 Morrison, A, “The Games People Play: Journalism and the Official Information Act” in Legal Research Foundation, above n 1 at 30-38Google Scholar.

211 G Palmer, above n 7 at 35.

212 G Terrill, above n 14 at 232.

213 Ibid at 233.

214 The papers are published in (1983) 14 FL Rev 1-198. The title of that seminar. Access to Government Information encouraged the speakers–lawyers, academics. bureaucrats and combinations of all three–to explore the developments, the prevailing and countering forces and the issues about access to government information after the first six months of FOI at the Commonwealth level in Australia.

215 Hughes C, “Commentaries”, ibid at 27-31.